As the government’s North Sea consultation nears its close, almost 600 climate scientists, health professionals and conservationists have urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to reject new drilling plans for the Rosebank oil field.
The experts’ warning comes as Burnham prepares to meet Donald Trump in New York next week, after the US president publicly encouraged the UK to expand North Sea oil and gas production.
Rosebank becomes a defining test for Burnham
A letter sent to Burnham and Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh argues that approving Rosebank would clash with climate science and undermine the UK’s national and international climate commitments.
The intervention adds weight to growing pressure on the government to withhold permission for the project, which is considered one of the most significant unresolved licensing decisions in the North Sea. Rosebank lies roughly 80 miles north-west of Shetland and is described as the largest untapped oil field in UK waters.
Reports have suggested that the government could approve the Jackdaw gas field, located 150 miles east of Aberdeen, potentially as early as this month. The BBC and The Guardian have also reported that Fahnbulleh is expected to consider Rosebank in the coming months.
Burnham has faced calls from climate campaigners to “stick to the spirit of Labour’s manifesto commitment” and refuse permission for new fossil fuel extraction since becoming prime minister in July.
Experts warn of climate costs and energy-security limits
In their Thursday letter, the group of 575 experts said: “We believe that approval of Rosebank would be ignoring the warnings of scientific research on climate change and would be the wrong decision for the UK, sending a dangerous message on the international stage.”
A resubmitted application for the field says Rosebank would generate more than 250 million tonnes of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to 70% of the UK’s annual emissions. A separate report estimates that the damage caused by fossil fuels produced at Rosebank could cost between £119 billion and £336 billion over the coming decades, compared with an estimated £28.7 billion in value to the UK from Adura, the company behind the project.
The experts also pointed to recent extreme weather in Britain, including record heatwaves, wildfires and drought. They said the past 11 years have been the warmest on record, while this summer’s events have been estimated to cost the UK more than £4.4 billion.
They further challenged claims that Rosebank would reduce energy bills or strengthen UK energy security, arguing that most of the oil extracted would be exported rather than used domestically.
“Communities are already facing rising costs because of drought, excess deaths because of heatwaves, and loss of land due to wildfires,” the letter said. “This is a matter of national security and approving Rosebank would be adding fuel to the fire.”
It added: “A Government’s first responsibility is to prioritise above all else the best interests of the people it serves and protects – approving Rosebank would be completely going against this principle, by knowingly triggering more devastation on the people of the UK.”
Scientists and economists join the appeal
Among the signatories were Emeritus Professor Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London, Professor Elizabeth Robinson, director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, and Professor Paul Behrens from the University of Oxford.
Haigh said: “The science is clear. If we are to meet our international and national targets on the climate and nature emergency, we cannot allow any additional oil and gas extraction.”
She added that rejecting Rosebank would give the UK “an opportunity to once again show global leadership and be a positive example for other nations to follow”.
Robinson said: “This summer, thousands of people died prematurely. British households faced rising costs and communities had to suffer severe heatwaves, wildfires and now drought – all because of human-induced climate change.”
Her warning was blunt: “Approving Rosebank would only lock communities into that same cycle.”
The appeal follows a separate letter last month from 150 climate scientists, who argued that the government should at minimum require fossil fuel companies to remove some of the carbon released when oil and gas from the North Sea are burned as a condition of new drilling licences.
Government faces pressure as North Sea plans advance
Despite the warnings, the government has not ruled out further approvals. It has also indicated that reforming the sector’s tax regime could unlock more than 100 North Sea projects, according to previous claims.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “We do not comment on speculation. The North Sea remains a vital national asset and oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come – alongside transitioning to clean power to protect jobs and tackle the climate crisis.”
The spokesperson added: “Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received during the consultation process.”
The coming weeks are therefore likely to be decisive. Burnham’s response to Rosebank will shape not only the future of UK oil and gas licensing, but also the government’s credibility on climate policy at a time of heightened diplomatic attention.
Why it Matters
The Rosebank decision is about more than one offshore field. It will reveal whether the UK is willing to prioritise long-term climate resilience over short-term extraction, and whether its energy policy can withstand pressure from both industry and international political allies while households continue to face the costs of a warming world.
